Talk:DC Anti-War Network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DC Anti-War Network article.
Article policies
Politics Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Anti-war, a collective approach to organizing and unifying articles related to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Carol Moore Response

I do not have a problem with removing the specific comment since other language related to conflict was inserted by someone else. However, anyone who wants to review the open archives of the now defunct DC Antiwar Network Discussion yahoogroup can see lots of criticism of the Weekly Action Group. However, the major point of contention at the end was their chanting "we know where you live" at the Israeli Ambassador's home, which two women complained about to me and others, one of them on another defunct DAWN list serve that does not have any archives.

Carol Moore 04:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

[edit] Clean Up

This page needs to be cleaned up: sources should be referenced and topics should be grouped into sections.

Also, external links should not look like internal links: they need to be in a reference list and cited with footnotes. Denis Diderot II 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the article to alert people to your points. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, will do next week. Busy with peace protests til Tues or Weds!

Carol Moore 17:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

[edit] Recent additions (April '07)

I am again putting in factual details about events which happened within DAWN in 2006, and more recently this year. These statements were taken out recently by Carol Moore, suggesting they were only points of view, but they are facts. DAWN did vote to resume paying membership dues to UFPJ and attendance rates continue to be a challenge for DAWN. If the group can not make quorum decisions can not be made. This information should be left in, as it is factual and DAWN has prided itself on being completely transparent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeteinDC (talk • contribs) 03:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I read the most recent edits, and I think they're pretty good. I think that they fall within the bounds of NPOV, and they read well. All I changed was the sections, since it was left with no introduction and third-level headings at the top. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression asking for attribution meant that there should be a named source (like newspaper with date/page) or link to some source that verifies info. For example, in this case a linked page of meeting notes, an announcement page or reportback page or a news story. I certainly don't want to see the article knocked off wikipedia because such info is not provided when it easily could be. I haven't had a chance to do it myself. If it is not necessary to do those kinds of "attributions" please do tell. Carol Moore 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

[edit] Material that Should Be Sourced or Removed (April '07)

Thinking about these two sentences below, that I earlier critiqued, it seems that the author should either prove they are accurate through reference to some source like meeting notes or email entries or remove them. The first statement actually ads little factually of interest, even if the point is proved. Assuming the second statement is not proved, it could be reduced to the provable fact that DAWN organized a "Unity Meeting" before the Sept 2005 protests.

This is just to keep Wikipedia honest and help us improve all our editing skills. I assume that if the author does not prove the points under contention it will be OK for this or another editor to remove or correct them. Carol Moore 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

STATEMENT ONE

This statement is an example of something of questionable factuality that should be sourced: "This network, although some would say group, was born from a series of protests and ad-hoc activist meetings prior to the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, the unofficial group toyed with other names, such as the D.C. League Against the War (DCLAW), before settling on DAWN." I was at these meetings and don't remember that name being suggested and certainly not as a top contender. Hearsay information doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This is about the larger good of Wikipedia. Also, a little research could result in more accurate dates.

Carol Moore 21:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Dave Zirin can be cited on this, as he was the one that nominated this name. We can change it to "among names considered..." unsigned
I don't know if WIKI takes affidavits :-) Otherwise find relevant minutes. And decide if this is the quality of information that improves the article. Carol Moore 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

STATEMENT TWO

This is an example of a purely personal opinion based on one incident, with no factual evidence: "DAWN was instrumental in gathering activists to encourage UFPJ and ANSWER to work together in a massive anti-war mobilization in September 2005. The group was largely successful in this endeavor, but the two national coalitions had major disagreements and parted ways soon after." Yes, DAWN held a "unity" meeting where there was a lot of disunity, but that is probably not the reason the two groups came together in that rally. If there is sourced info that this one DAWN sponsored gathering had that big an effect, it should be attributed.

Carol Moore 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Perhaps we can cite minutes notes about the Unity Meeting. I do recall Brian Becker saying that DAWN was a tough bargainer and a "pain in the a**." unsigned
It's your job to find such notes and other sources otherwise the conclusions drawn not credible. The fact of a unity meeting is more easily proved. Carol Moore 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
Thank you for pointing this out. I have made the necessary additions. PeteinDC 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)PeteinDC

[edit] Speaking of sourcing...

We need several reliable third-party sources. Does anyone have or know of any mainstream media coverage of DAWN and/or its events that's more than just a passing mention? Certainly we can find something for J20, if nothing else. Otherwise, debates about details won't add up to much if the article gets AFD'd. It would really do us all well to beef up our sources to make sure that notability is proven. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I put in one reference to J20 where the link was dead. The other J20 link below still works but I could NOT get it to link properly from the article title within the reference, even though I studied the links page and the various options.
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/5419/
"Few Arrested As Protesters Stage Die-Ins, Build Coffins and Share Opinions", January 21, 2005

Carol Moore 15:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

OK I put in some mainstream and other news stories/reports on DAWN. I got the link above to work OK, but another one just won't work. I'll look at it tomorrow. Haven't figured out how to do previews of references from WIKI'S links pages. Well, this has been good practice, anyway!

Carol Moore 02:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Easiest thing to do is to use Wikipedia's citation templates. They're all listed in Category:Citation templates. I find {{Cite news}} and {{Cite web}} the most handy in the bunch. Just copy that template in between ref tags and fill it in. Wikipedia does the rest. For instance, to cite an article that says how wonderful I am, use this:

<ref name="Ben is awesome">{{cite news | first = John | last = Doe | authorlink = | author = | coauthors = | title = Survey Proves Ben Schumin is the Most Wonderful Person on the Face of This Earth | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/article/ben-is-the-greatest.html | format = | work = [[The Washington Post]] | publisher = | id = | pages = | page = A1 | date = [[April 1]], [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-04-19 | language = English | quote = }}</ref>

That's how I do it, and it's so easy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for that help, on wonderful one! So much to learn! What's not clear is when you want to do two references in one footnote. Do you put semi-colon in between like I did? It worked once when I used the minimal html format, but the second time the link shows. Also, looked around some more and still not sure how to preview references from DAWN wiki page. Otherwise I guess I can use a sandbox and put in both sections, which is what I'll try... :-)

Carol Moore 18:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Used the {{Cite web}} format for a couple references in a whole 'nother article and it worked great so came back and corrected that one link problem. Definitely easier than figuring out why the HTML is acting wacky! Thanks.Carol Moore 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

[edit] Fixing Link so Reflects War Tax Resistance Link

Since many DAWNers only support war tax resistance, to accurately reflect the group's view, and the WIKI page being linked which repeatedly mentions war tax resistance, I'd like to link it something like this.

Tax Resistance (specifically, vs. war) Any problem with that?

Carol Moore 23:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

When it comes to "See also" links, I personally think piping is improper, and since the article is about tax resistance in general... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)